Thread Tools

In another thread people have been sorta talking about this, which reminded me I was thinking of starting a thread about it.

A few weeks ago I lifted my self-imposed ban on BSPN to watch a film the rapper/actor Ice Cube made about the Raiders' L.A. years titled Straight Outta L.A.. Towards the end, Al Davis says flat out that there was a deal for a stadium in Hollywood Park, but he turned it down and moved back to Oakland solely because the league wanted him to share the stadium with another team and he refused. Instead he moved back to Oakland because they promised him a new stadium... which he still doesn't have 15 years later. I know it's redundant to say so, but Al has got to be the biggest tool in modern pro sports today.

I've heard that there are a lot of executive-types who want the Raiders back in L.A., but aren't willing to even discuss it until Al kicks off because they found him absolutely impossible to work with.

And then there's the whole issue of whether the league should even try to put a team in L.A. because they only seem interested in teams that can win championships, and with the NFL's system of parity it's doubtful the L.A. team will be a consistent winner. (And yet the Clippers have been in said city for decades... )

I'm 32 and didn't really get into football until I was 13 (which was when I became a Pats fan, also). I vaguely remember the Raiders in LA, and the only thing that ever comes to mind is the stadium they played in being hardly full and the people that were there always struck me as disinterested. I know LA is a "big market", but the NFL has been just fine without a team there for this long. Why the big push, especially if people are going to treat it like a Lakers game and not show up until the 2nd quarter, only be interested in championship teams, ect.

I'm 32 and didn't really get into football until I was 13 (which was when I became a Pats fan, also). I vaguely remember the Raiders in LA, and the only thing that ever comes to mind is the stadium they played in being hardly full and the people that were there always struck me as disinterested. I know LA is a "big market", but the NFL has been just fine without a team there for this long. Why the big push, especially if people are going to treat it like a Lakers game and not show up until the 2nd quarter, only be interested in championship teams, ect.

Click to expand...

The LA fans were good fans. I don't know why people bag on them. There were so many of them that of course the stadium was full.

Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere moved their teams because they were given sweetheart stadium deals with Oakland and St. Louis. when you look at revenues generated, the only extra that comes from being located in a big market is trademark income from selling jerseys and hats. Otherwise, it's the NFL as a whole that profits from the LA big market, and not the individual teams.

Beyond trademark income, the big item for owners is stadium revenue. That's the entire game for them. And this is why LA lost its teams, not because of indifferent fans. Some can argue that fans were indifferent and therefore allowed their politicians to dither in buckling to NFL billionaires, but that argument holds no water for me since I don't want my county or municipality paying for stadiums that make owners rich, and as a fan I'm more than willing to sit in 15 degree windy weather in an old open air stadium. Just fine by me. I don't need other amenities.

For me, the bankrupt culture of professional sports came to a head when Minnesota politicians crossed a bridge on the way to the groundbreaking of a taxpayer funded stadium a few years ago. Fifteen minutes later, that bridge fell and people plunged to their deaths. So, you have money for a stadium, but no money for a bridge, when engineers are telling you it's about to collapse.

A NFL franchise will fold long before the owners allow it to move to LA.

Or, otherwise, the NFL will force the owner to buy into LA. The other owners are not simply going to allow Jacksonville to move to LA for free. Weaver will maybe get $700 million to fold up his franchise, but if he wants to move to LA instead, he better be willing to pay another $700 million minimum.

Al Davis and Georgia Frontiere moved their teams because they were given sweetheart stadium deals with Oakland and St. Louis. when you look at revenues generated, the only extra that comes from being located in a big market is trademark income from selling jerseys and hats. Otherwise, it's the NFL as a whole that profits from the LA big market, and not the individual teams.

Click to expand...

Actually in the case of the Raiders, the popularity of the trademark was one of the things that helped do them in. Because the members of the rap group N.W.A. were Raiders fans, they wore Raider hats and gear, which in turn led to Raiders gear being seen as a gang symbol, so a lot of people were afraid to wear it. And in the last few years the Raiders were in L.A., stadium attendance dwindled because there was a perception that the stands were full of gang members.

When I was in high school a friend of mine went to the Mall of America (which is in Minnesota, mind you) wearing a Raiders shirt. He claimed that there were a bunch of gang-banger types who started following him all over the mall until he went into a bathroom and switched his shirt inside-out. After that they went away.

But to point back to your original point, I think you're right about one thing. While it would be good for the league as a whole to have a team in L.A., the owner of that team would have a tough time of it.

The only reason why there isn't a football team in L.A. is because they still don't have a plan for a new stadium and where to put it. If you remember, this was the sole reason why they didn't receive the expansion franchise in '99. L.A. fans (including myself) and the media really wanted in a team back in '99 but the desire burned out when we realized it wasn't going to happen.

But 11 years later, rumors are starting to float around that an existing franchise may move to L.A.. Like I said in an earlier thread, the best team to move to L.A. would be the Chargers.

The only reason why there isn't a football team in L.A. is because they still don't have a plan for a new stadium and where to put it. If you remember, this was the sole reason why they didn't receive the expansion franchise in '99.

Click to expand...

You got that right. The league tried giving them more time, just like they did when they were trying to get the expansion team in Jacksonville in the early '90s, even though Baltimore was the far better candidate. This time, however, the delays didn't help.

I'm sure the league would have loved having those guys as owners too, since they probably wouldn't know what they were getting into.

The only reason why there isn't a football team in L.A. is because they still don't have a plan for a new stadium and where to put it. If you remember, this was the sole reason why they didn't receive the expansion franchise in '99. L.A. fans (including myself) and the media really wanted in a team back in '99 but the desire burned out when we realized it wasn't going to happen.

But 11 years later, rumors are starting to float around that an existing franchise may move to L.A.. Like I said in an earlier thread, the best team to move to L.A. would be the Chargers.

Click to expand...

Actually, they do have a plan for a stadium and Gov. Schwartenegger has approved funding if an NFL team commits to moving to Los Angeles. The problem is getting a team to move. With stadium leases on publically built stadiums, it isn't as easy to leave as it has been in the past. That has been the biggest hold up.

Actually in the case of the Raiders, the popularity of the trademark was one of the things that helped do them in. Because the members of the rap group N.W.A. were Raiders fans, they wore Raider hats and gear, which in turn led to Raiders gear being seen as a gang symbol, so a lot of people were afraid to wear it. And in the last few years the Raiders were in L.A., stadium attendance dwindled because there was a perception that the stands were full of gang members.

Click to expand...

This could be why I am remembering the stadium being empty douring thier games.

Actually, they do have a plan for a stadium and Gov. Schwartenegger has approved funding if an NFL team commits to moving to Los Angeles. The problem is getting a team to move. With stadium leases on publically built stadiums, it isn't as easy to leave as it has been in the past. That has been the biggest hold up.

Actually, they do have a plan for a stadium and Gov. Schwartenegger has approved funding if an NFL team commits to moving to Los Angeles. The problem is getting a team to move. With stadium leases on publically built stadiums, it isn't as easy to leave as it has been in the past. That has been the biggest hold up.

The stadium in LA was "virtually" empty for Raiders games because the LA Coliseum was built for the Olympics and seats close to 100,000 people. No NFL team has that kind of seating capacity - although I think the new Cowboys stadium comes close with SRO tickets

The number 1 factor in why the NFL NEEDS a team in LA is television. The LA area is the largest TV audience in the country. TV ratings across the board are dwindling and while the NFL still does very well ratings wise, adding a team in LA would raise the ratings. The Networks would pay more for NFL rights (which are shared equally among all teams) and then turn around and charge more for advertising.

The knock against a team in LA is that the fans don't come out to support the team - There's too much else to do on Sundays, Traffic sucks and there are too many transients that root for their home teams. Even still, the TV ratings of an LA based team in the largest TV market would far surpass what
teams like Buffalo, Oakland and Jacksonville contribute on a weekly basis.

Actually, they do have a plan for a stadium and Gov. Schwartenegger has approved funding if an NFL team commits to moving to Los Angeles. The problem is getting a team to move. With stadium leases on publically built stadiums, it isn't as easy to leave as it has been in the past. That has been the biggest hold up.

They also had a stadium "ready" in '99 with pictures and the whole nine yards, but nothing happened.

Click to expand...

Well, the problem wasn't the state. It was the NFL. Al Davis tried to block a team going there and tried to move the Raiders himself to Hollywood park (he and the county of Oakland were suing and countersuing each other over revenue issues) and the league ended up kiboshing the whole idea and then Davis turned around and sued the league for $1.2 billion for sabataging him and plans to move to Los Angeles. The state of California had nothing to do with that.

While the funding may be "approved", California is in dire straits financially and will probably have to withdraw the funding.

Click to expand...

We are talking about California. They spend money on stupid things and cut things that state really needs. Part of the reason the state is in such dire straits is because of wasteful spending. The state was in dire straits when they approved the stadium. It will provide a lot of short and long term jobs that the state desperately needs. That was probably the thinking.

We are talking about California. They spend money on stupid things and cut things that state really needs. Part of the reason the state is in such dire straits is because of wasteful spending. The state was in dire straits when they approved the stadium. It will provide a lot of short and long term jobs that the state desperately needs. That was probably the thinking.

Click to expand...

I know, Rob.. But I didn't want this thread to turn political in nature.. That's why I didn't go into it.

We are talking about California. They spend money on stupid things and cut things that state really needs. Part of the reason the state is in such dire straits is because of wasteful spending. The state was in dire straits when they approved the stadium. It will provide a lot of short and long term jobs that the state desperately needs. That was probably the thinking.

Click to expand...

Pretty much- that's what happens when spending bills are approved by referendum, and the public will cannot be overruled by elected representatives. The crowd votes for wasteful spending, which forces tax increases that are both political suicide for those who support them and also cause the wealthiest individuals and businesses to simply leave the state altogether.

California is exhibit A in why public referendum should not be the final authority on approving spending bills.

Actually, they do have a plan for a stadium and Gov. Schwartenegger has approved funding if an NFL team commits to moving to Los Angeles. The problem is getting a team to move. With stadium leases on publically built stadiums, it isn't as easy to leave as it has been in the past. That has been the biggest hold up.

Minor clarification, but I'm pretty sure that the approval was for City of Industry. It's pretty close to where I live, also in L.A. county, but not inside of the city itself. Given the massive sprawl of the entire area, it's not a completely trivial distinction, although it's still not nearly Boston-Foxboro distance or anything.

I believe if and when there is a stadium in Los Angeles, Al Davis and his Oakland Raiders will pick up sticks and move there, again. Furthermore he will sue the NFL, if it prevents him from doing so. He will also sue any team trying to go there, like Jacksonville or Buffalo, as infringing on his franchise territory.

Davis has been very careful to document the Breach of Contract that the Oakland Coliseum made with him. In any case, he has executed no long term Lease,so he is free to go.

Besides it is plain stupid to have two teams in the Bay area when it is not even in the Top Seven size of cities. While no other Top Ten city, other than the singular exception of New York, that has two teams.

He will say, "Move to Toronto, San Antonio and/or Mexico City if you want. LA is Raider's Country".

But he won't alienate Oakland fans until a LA Stadium is ready. Catch 22.

I'm sure the networks would prefer to have a team in LA, and the NFL is aware of that. The increase in the number of viewers in LA if they had a team is presumably greater than the decrease in the number of viewers in Jacksonville, for example, if they were to lose a team.

I would certainly expect an NFL team to return there, but based on the comments about the implied threat of a lawsuit by Al Davis, as well as California's financial situation, my guess is it will be several more years before that happens - although I would have never expected LA would go as long as they have without a team. There hasn't been a team there since 1994; at the time I figured they'd be without a team for five years at the most.